Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WilyD/Questions for the candidate

=General questions=
 * General Questions submitted by the users indicated. For more information, please see the guidelines posted here.

Question from Ultraexactzz
Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?
 * Resolution

Questions from Giggy
Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.
 * 1) a/s/l?
 * [[Image:WilyD.png|right|thumb|I believe this answers all of question 1 with the same seriousness...]]
 * 1) What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.
 * I am unconvinced there's a real divide here. On issues, one may fall one way or the other (certainly I mostly work on content, but at IfD fall much more into the "project" side, for instance). Ultimately, every area of the encyclopaedia has its own customs and practice, and there is a responsibility on those who arrive to try and understand what's going on and ask for help in a civil way when they're unsure, and a responsibility on those active there to explain  customs and practices to those who're new or unsure.
 * 1) Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.
 * Off the top of my head, I could not have supported "ArbCom's permission needed for another RfA" in JoshuaZ, unless the circumstances were very different from what was publicised (or what I heard via the grapevine).
 * 1) Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Well, from article writing Peter_Jones_(missionary) is pretty clearly my best contribution. The image Image:Outersolarsystem objectpositions labels comp.png which I created is now used 35 times on 18 different language Wikipedias with captions translated to French and Turkish.  My efforts at dispute resolution were probably most worthwhile at Muhammad, where a solution I propoesd was stable for a long while, which led into real discussion rather than ideological warring.  I have been particularly active at IfD, which is often short hands.  No one episode stands out there, though I have been able to rescue a number of suspected copyright violations by showing the image to be in the public domain.  I have also written ~150 new articles, as an example I'll offer Joseph-Geneviève_de_Puisaye, which is of high encyclopaedic importance. (This fifth is rather a cop-out, but I think the first four cover the point well.)
 * 1) Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?
 * Candidates standing for office usually vote. In fact, their voting is usually captured by local media.  Thus I lean towards it, though I haven't committed myself to it.  I hate to think any successful candidate would refuse to work with someone who opposed their candidacy (or didn't support them while supporting others).  Certainly I'm happy to work with people who vote "oppose" in my "support this candidate" list.
 * Candidates standing for office usually vote. In fact, their voting is usually captured by local media.  Thus I lean towards it, though I haven't committed myself to it.  I hate to think any successful candidate would refuse to work with someone who opposed their candidacy (or didn't support them while supporting others).  Certainly I'm happy to work with people who vote "oppose" in my "support this candidate" list.

Questions from Sarcasticidealist
I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there. I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.
 * 1) To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?
 * Policy exists in a weird superposition of descriptive and prescriptive. In a very real way [[WP:IAR|rule #1] makes is impossible for it to be completely binding and prescriptive.  But that is a release valve, in the vast majority of cases editors should know what to expect before they do anything.  I should be able to know whether an article is likely to be deleted before I bother creating it, I should know what kind of sockpuppets are allowed before I create them, I should know what what kind of language is acceptable before I'm sanctioned.  This occuring the overwhelming majority of the time is necessary for a functional community.  Arbitratiness creates a terrible, fearful atmosphere.  Uh - in short they should be more or less prescriptive in the sense that they're followed without compelling reason not to, and in those cases where we don't, we must be more lenient with those who step outside the bounds.  But not binding.
 * 1) What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?
 * I do not see a good justification for it. 3 year staggered terms already provide continuity and institutional memory.  While it is not something I would support, I have no specific intention of campaigning to end it.
 * 1) At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?
 * I am not a fan of the AOR category - both due to it's non-binding nature and because it creates the illusion of a solution to a problem where there really is no solution. While I would support some form of mandatory recall, I cannot support voluntary recall for these reasons (both with admins and ArbCom).

Questions from Celarnor

 * 1) What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
 * I see no reason to limit oneself here. Topic-based (rather than user-based) restrictions have worked well in the past (e. g. for various large scale conflicts (Azerbaijan-Armenia springs to mind) or for "Wikipedia Hot-Spot" topics) and I don't see the need to shy away from this.  Where rulings are directed at everyone, they must be well advertised, and users informed of them before any sanctions.
 * 1) What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?
 * Burnt-out Arbs obviously have an ethical obligation to step down. I'll ponder this more, too.

Question from LessHeard vanU
This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction. Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.
 * 1) Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As ArbCom is the only reliable venue to review adminship, it must necessarily accept all legitimate cases where the use of admin tools is in question, and desysop (without prejudice to new RFAs) where abuse of those tools has occured. Until a mandatory recall procedure is initiated, this will be the case.

Question from Carnildo

 * 1) How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?
 * I do not have explicit expectations in this regard. It'll take what it takes.  Although I expect to be able to handle a sensible load, if I prove incapable of handling the workload I'll resign and let someone else be appointed.

Question from WilyD

 * 1) During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally).  While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations?  If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
 * Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when?  If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?


 * My opinions on this subject should be obvious enough. Clueful,  informed editors should be setting an example, not trying to get away with murder.

Questions from PhilKnight

 * 1) In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to publish a "list of users who I think ought to be banned", but there are two or three users who make me shake my head and say "How are you not banned yet?" every time their username shows up on my watchlist - all those conflicts are stale now, and I'd rather not reopen old disputes.
 * I think it's clear I'm involved in a long-running dispute involving nomenclature for the Americas. I probably recuse in cases about Muhammad whether it's necessary or not, as there's at least a possible problem of appearences and history there. Nothing else is immeadiately obvious, though certainly new disputes could rise up where I'm an active editor.
 * 1) Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?
 * CIVIL requires comments to be directed at the content, not the editor. Thus "The  User:JohnQNobody is promoting is a scientific racist one" is not a personal attack, and "User:JohnQNobody is a racist" is.  In all likelihood a block isn't warrented with warnings and chances to rephrase if User:Jaccuse has no history.  Depending on how severe and extended the conflict is, topic ban for User:JohnQNobody and interaction ban between the two might be called for.

Questions from Thatcher
1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?
 * In short, I don't think it's a bad call. Without a solid connection between the accounts, and with the problematic behaviour over, there's no cause for additional sanctions.  Punitive sanctions should never be applied per "Oh, well she might deserve them".

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?
 * (a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.
 * (b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.
 * (c) Write your own answer.
 * Barring exceptional circumstances that present with a pressing need for speed, b seems most appropriate. Checkuser is a more serious function than ordinary administration, and needs to be treated more seriously.

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?


 * Your actions off Wikipedian as a Wikipedian still reflect upon you. I would not endorse the unblock of any user who still harbours an active grudge.

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?


 * Vote your conscience. I am explicitly running on a "ball up and take action against those who misbehave so much and so severly that they get dragged in front of ArbCom" platform.  That will necessarily put me in favour of sanctions other Arbs approach.  Real-life courts admit internal disagreements - it's far better for their credibility.  This is no different.

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?
 * Obviously ArbCom cuts severely into your other activities. Realistically, I expect that any other administrative tasks I currently do will fall by the wayside, with enough article writing to keep me sane and connected.
 * With 15 Arbs, enough eyes should exist for every case. I can't speak for every unblock request.  If the rest of the arbitration committee resolves something a way I wouldn't have argued for, I'll accept it, or (in extreme cases) appeal it, as would any regular editor.

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?
 * Uhm - no, yes, no.

Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
 * (A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * (B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
 * (C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * (D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;
 * (E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
 * (F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * (G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).


 * In principle, I see no reason why I won't engage in A-E. F would probably require a little time learning the checkuser practices, which I might or might not, as time and need dictate.  I am reasonably familiar with  the general principles involved and so forth, so it might well be worthwhile for me to do this, but I have no intention at this time of doing checkusers, nor am I averse to learning the ropes and mucking in.
 * I have no specific plans to do anything as an Arb beyond respond to queries, concerns and block review requests via the mailing list and handle case (including evidence analysis, proposing decisions, voting) and clarificaton requests. I'm not averse to addressing other situations that arise, though.

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?


 * A few thoughts
 * The ArbCom was created as a "joint venture" between Jimbo and the Community, each relying upon their own authority. But Jimbo's authority flows from the community.  I don't believe either Jimbo or the ArbCom truly has the authority to prohibit the community from unilaterially changing the policy where it has a true will to do so.  The point is probably academic, though I'm uncomfortable with that inclusion in FT2's draft.
 * Pushing to close cases in seven days seems unrealistic given the history. While I (and probably almost everyone) would like to see more timely management, this may be an unrealistic goal.  Promised updates every seven days FT2's version) seem far more realistic.

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.
 * I think an ideal world should never see ArbCom cases. As I said, ArbCom should never be anyone's goal - people should be in dispute resolution trying to work it out, rather than going to the motions to arrive there.
 * That said, I have no suggestion on why the caseload is what it is. Each ArbCom will vary in what cases it accepts, so a "reject-y" ArbCom will see less cases, and an "accept-y" ArbCom will see more.  Seeing ArbCom sitting on MegaCases for month(s) doing nothing may discourage filing of cases - why go to ArbCom when they're unlikely to resolve anything anyways?

Questions from Mailer Diablo
1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?


 * + flagged revisions.

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?


 * If the ArbCom tried to create a policy the community did not support, it would be an unmitigate disaster. Additionally, the exceptional kinds of cases that appear before ArbCom make for bad case law.  Interpreting policy is necessary, but ArbCom should be thought of as a court system, which establishes precedents, but doesn't create laws.

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?(AC/IRC)


 * It is obvious enough that private communications will always be able to escape ArbCom if wanted. I do not believe ArbCom can claim jurisdiction over IRC - this is probably good.  If IRC were "officialised", then consensuses there could be legitimately cited for actions on wiki and so forth - with it's barrier to entry, this ought to be avoided.

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?
 * I am not promising to reform the format of arbitration, but the substance. Historically we've elected people so inoffensive they could tell a joke with the punchline "The Holocaust" at a meeting of the JDL and not get booed.  Rather predictably, ArbCom has been extremely careful not to tred upon any toes.  Beyond this, I refer you to the fable of Mouseland.

Questions from Rschen7754
Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
 * Err, obviously the time is extremely long. I don't see the need for such an exceptional length in this case.
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Wikiprojects provide forums for collaborations on topics and a venue to find helpful editors (for instance, I stumbled across an editor who speaks Anishaabe via the relevent Wikiproject, which was immensely useful in writing Peter Jones (missionary). Wikiprojects do not have any particular standing, standard layouts are generally advised through the MOS.
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * In a word, no. Probably WP:OWN is the closest thing to the obvious policy - nobody owns project space or article space.
 * 1) Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
 * Canvassing is in the substance of the communication, not the medium. Recruiting editors to support a position is canvassing, merely advertising the existence of something is not.
 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * I have no problem with rollback for any non-contraversial reversion. An editor "on a rampage" might reasonably be blocked to prevent it, at which point they should be engaged and the problems explained to them.  Protects are often used against good faith users - blocks rarely.  Circumstances depend, of course.
 * 1) An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
 * I think this description is kind of general, but I see no reason to tolerate those who would cultivate drama and engage in disruption, especially for it's own sake. Large intergrated misbehaviour is more troublesome than a single clueless incident (some mornings I just don't have time for my pot of coffee myself).
 * 1) An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
 * Disruptive accounts need to be blocked, especially where the problem cannot be resolved. While much patience should be employed teaching new users the ropes, teaching them English (as per your example) is beyond the call of duty (and reasonableness)
 * 1) a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
 * In the case of good faith users, there's no reason to even ban them, though "indefinite blocks until problems are resolved" may often be mandated. For disruptive users who know better, community bans might be employed, though barring very serious circumstances, the door should always be open for an editor who has come to understand what the problem was and how to avoid it in the future.
 * 1) (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?
 * Entrenchment of ideas and practices, probably. "We've always done X, so must continue doing X" is used too often to justify otherwise bad ideas (notably the feet draggin on the BLP problem).
 * A thirst for human blood. New users are too often treated in a rough manner, especially in cases where they're perceived as vaguely spammy or vain-y.

Questions from Maxim

 * 1) What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
 * Wheel warring shouldn't occur - admins are supposed to be editors who already "know better". The policy has historically been unclear about whether contributing a single reversion of an admin action is wheel warring, and in these cases I am inclined to believe it's not, while a double doing of an admin action (action + reversion, or two reversions) is wheel warring.  In the latter case, I will support a desysoping (without prejudice to further RFAs if desired)


 * 1) What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
 * I would like to see some functional form of this implemented (if only to relax people a bit at RFA), but I don't see it coming anytime soon. I do not think ArbCom would play any role in such a thing (nor should it)


 * 1) What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?
 * In the case of tools, you're responsible for what you do, as though they didn't exist, but otherwise I see no issue. I see no problem with admin bots, those run on accounts "secretly" have historically been a valid IAR, as far as I can see, and those running them have been completely responsible for their actions. I don't see why BRfA should be a problem, compared to RfA. Wily D  18:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from FT2
These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged. (Arbitrators need to be 'on the ball' and able to pick up impressions fairly accurately.)


 * 1) (Questions removed. I have decided, on reflection, to ask them individually to candidates, this year at least. I'll see how it goes in deciding if that has worked better than asking them centrally. Also may help with follow-up. To see the questions, look at a candidates' Q&A page where I've asked them.)

I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you. FT2 (Talk 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from rootology
Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?
 * No, it was a mistake. It conflated unrelated issues, bogged down the case so it took longer, and lead to a more general remedy.

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?
 * That vote was clearly enormously problematic, but I am extremely uncomfortable with Arbs voting each other off the island. The community can develop a recall procedure, or possibly appeal to Jimbo, but I cannot support Arbs refusing to seat each other in cases.  That opens the door to too much abuse.

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?
 * The ArbCom was created jointly by Jimbo and the Community in a vote ... uh, some time ago (I don't recall the exact date). The ArbCom's mandate is indeed set by the authority of both (though the authority of the former flows from that of the latter) and can be set by the community.

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.
 * This would be preferable to the current situation, though not enough that I think it's worth pursuing at this time.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?
 * Not without 50%+1, no. An arbitrator who lacked a clear community mandate would be a liability, not an asset, to the ArbCom.

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?
 * Coming into this election, I had thought a fair bit about the role of ArbCom within the community, but substantially less upon the mechanics of ArbCom itself. As long as we're fantasising, put me down for: Mandatory recall where a consensus exists to do so.  Short, succinct, keeps clear who works for whom.

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:


 * a) The Community
 * b) Jimbo Wales
 * c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee
 * d) The Wikimedia Foundation


 * Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.
 * This is probably d - a - c - b, but historically is has been d - a - b - c and is probably transition. As ArbCom has established itself it's come out from Jimbo's shadow; today these two serves as sort of "checks" on each other, so it's hard to linearise them this way.  Ultimately Wikipedia (and the servers) are owned by the foundation, which empowers the community, which empowers Jimbo & ArbCom.  It is mostly just a "where does the mandate come from?" question.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology ( C )( T ) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Davewild

 * 1) Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it is appropriate for the Arbitration committee to change this. Thus, I have no plans to do anything if elected.  However, I would be open to supporting it as an editor, if such a policy change were pursued - burnout is quite high, the place changes a lot in three years, and a reduction to two year terms could be tried to see how it goes (for instance).

Questions from roux
This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?
 * Occasional minor incivility is tolerated from just about everyone - the difference is only in the response (we try to guide new users away from it, and more or less accept that old dogs don't learn new tricks. If the worst thing you can say about a user is that they have occasional episodes of minor incivility, they're not a problem.

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?
 * Rejecting any of the three listed, I'll say: It becomes a problem when civility restrictions are seen as a "license to block". I would only support civility restriction where a) a concrete penalty is made clear ahead of time and b) where any suspected occurances are referred back to ArbCom via request for clarifications rather than by random admins, where they have proven ineffective.  There's no shame in trying something and failing, but civility restrictions have failed, and the block->AN/I->unblock->scolds and bickering all around model is a failure, and needs to be marked down as such.


 * 2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?
 * I - uh - already answer'd this.

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [ roux  » x ] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)
'' This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. –  iride scent  01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ''
 * 1) Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?
 * Although Jimbo's rogue picks have a storied history, as long as the procedure is this, I don't see a reason to decline other than to pick a fight with Jimbo, so yes, I'd accept. If the community is unhappy with the method of appointment, it should create a new one.

Questions from Lar
Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.


 * 1) Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:
 * a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
 * No, I don't believe in an opt out. Those cases we cannot handle ought to be deleted regardless, those cases we can handle we're handling regardless.  In very fencish cases consideration of subject wishes makes some sense, though we'd never ever admit to considering "wish for inclusion" - which also makes "wish for noninclusion" a nonstarter - they're paired at the hip.
 * b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
 * I don't close anything as "no consensus", and as far as I can see the usual practice is "relist" anyhow. Rather than a hard and fast rule, consider that "BLP problems" are a strong "delete" argument.  "Slightly spammy" shouldn't change the default to delete, though.
 * P. S. Ultimately, the primary problem with BLPs is the lack of inspection by those familiar with the issues and the lack of control over the content. The ultimate answer will be something that addresses those - stable revisions, widespread protections, and not something that affects the inclusion criteria.  Inclusion criteria based ones don't affect whether the information is in the encyclopaedia, just where it is.  Optout is only relevent to those cases where the person is aware of their biography and how to commicate with us - any decent solution needs to address the problems across the board.
 * 1) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
 * a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
 * It can be both. Enforcement of BLP has not stepped up in the way other policies have.  In this sense there is a policy component.
 * b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
 * Functionally wrong, spiritually right. Admins need a stronger sense of how they're "allowed" to enforce policy, especially with regards to serious, immediate issues like BLPs.  Statements from ArbCom over what is/is not acceptable in this regard are extremely helpful.  I'm not sure how far we need to go - most "publicised" cases are handled reasonably well - it's detection that's the biggest problem.
 * c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
 * Would the community accept ArbCom adopting a practice like Reference questions? I think this would be a worthwhile approach.
 * 1) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
 * Consensus works well in most cases. In exceptional cases it may not, and in many cases we accept by consensus that votes are appropriate (e.g. RfA, which is a vote by consensus).  I don't think there's a crisis of no consensus at this time.
 * 1) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
 * I lie in bed at night dreaming of flagged revisions. I would suggest some minimal form as our own test rollout (possibly just featured content to start).  I don't think there's a failure to come to a decision about it, it hasn't received the attention it needs.
 * I don't see any serious role for the ArbCom in this, barring truly exceptional circumstances. As community leaders, they ought to be pushing the idea everywhere they go, but as the ArbCom they cannot (and should not) do it by fiat.
 * 1) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
 * a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
 * Yes. There's great merit in meritocracy.  Certainly similar projects have been tried without it to minimal success.  "Usual internet practice" suggests not disclosing personal information, and disclosing personal information has historically created far more problems than anonymity.
 * b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
 * I do not see a reason to change it. I am not sure how practical it is - certainly "barriers" could be implemented, but last I checked, even Knol could only verify Americans listed in the phone book or with credit cards.
 * c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
 * In general, there is a mandate that editors must respect each other, including the desire for anonymity. I do not see a reason to forbid the use of oversight/deletion and so forth to protect this, as the case may go.
 * d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
 * Depending on the occasion, this should be reported "privately", yes.
 * e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
 * No; no; I don't see any value in real life identities - there is no apparent difference in actions around here for self-identified and non-indentified. I plan to re-disclose my identity to the WMF if elected, but that's all, yes.
 * f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
 * Of course, WMF can't promise pseudoanonymity. Once lost, it can probably never be called back - one can restart and hope not to be noticed, but that is about all.  I am unsure there is any need to more strongly publicise the risk of exposure - this exists everywhere.
 * g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
 * This would realistically consistute a personal attack with real life implications. I would support a long term ban of one form or another (most likely indefinite - with possible rescindation at some future point if the violator gets where they went wrong)
 * 1) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
 * a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
 * Real life authorities probably should about internet presence in general. I'm not sure the WMF has a role here, though I have no voice there as a prospective or elected arb anyways.
 * b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
 * I have no sway over the WMF, of course. I couldn't suggest something like "spend money".  The privacy policy has a pretty wide clause "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." for information release, and in cases of genuine stalking I see no reason not to disclose any and all available information to law enforcement agencies.  Beyond this, I can do nothing as an arb, and can't begin to comment on what more proactive things WMF might do.
 * c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
 * Special allowances for what? If there's cause to believe an established stalker has followed someone here, I see no reason to treat it any differently from one developed here.
 * d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
 * Err, obviously enough if someone uses Wikipedia for the purposes of stalking they need to be excluded from here as much as is possible, and any relevent information released to relevant legal authorities. I don't think it matters whether the victim is an editor here or not, the response will be about the same.
 * e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
 * There is no bright line; the difference is really in intent, manner and behaviour. Realistically, a single review of someone contributions, with a single publicisation to the communities of that review's results, are appropriate. Directing communications to the subject if they've asked you to desist, repeated cases of complaints and so forth journey towards harassment.
 * 1) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
 * Very unwelcome editors should probably be considered on a case by case basis, and the result chosen that gives them the least satisfaction. (There are few enough that this is probably plausible, of course, I'm not privy to all the details).
 * For regular banned editors it is silly and not worthwhile, but policy allows it so I'd not take any action as an arbitrator.
 * 1) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
 * a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
 * I see no reason to confine discussion to here. Certainly private discussions will invariably take place elsewhere.
 * b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
 * I own no such venue. I have commented in various other places before (Wikback, User:Danny's blog)
 * c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes, that's why I want to see Arbitrators with no allegiance issues. Those of us who're experienced and know the rules & practices should hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour, because we know better.  And when we fail to, we should be held against it by our peers.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * this one. It's well explained. ;)
 * d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
 * e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
 * Yes, that's why I want to see Arbitrators with no allegiance issues. Those of us who're experienced and know the rules & practices should hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour, because we know better.  And when we fail to, we should be held against it by our peers.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * this one. It's well explained. ;)
 * Yes, that's why I want to see Arbitrators with no allegiance issues. Those of us who're experienced and know the rules & practices should hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour, because we know better.  And when we fail to, we should be held against it by our peers.
 * 1) What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)
 * this one. It's well explained. ;)
 * this one. It's well explained. ;)

Questions from Heimstern

 * 1) Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
 * I have run on a platform of handing out sanctions like rain, and so here it is pretty clear I would support a wide variety of sanctions, with more frequency than ArbCom historically has. Notably in cases where nationalist sentiment impairs judgement or behaviour, topic bans and reversion restrictions are the most obvious remedies (in general, specific cases require specific consideration).


 * 1) Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?
 * Civility restrictions have long proved troublesome. I might support a remedy that put down remedies suspended, with civility breaches reported to ArbCom to end the suspension, but the current idea just doesn't work. (i.e. a topic ban, not enacted until further incivility vett'd by ArbCom in a clarification request)

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

 * 1) What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?
 * I don't think one could be an effective arbitrator without 50% of the vote. Otherwise, let Wikipedians calibrate their own percentages and select the top %age getters - if 62% is the highest approval, we shouldn't leave ~5 seats unoccupied.
 * 1) Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?
 * I have already said I don't like AOR, and would not support similar voluntary measures for Arbs. Let the community enact a nonvoluntary one if it sees the need.

Questions from UninvitedCompany

 * 1) Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
 * 2) Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
 * 3) Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
 * 4) Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
 * 5) Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations?  If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
 * 6) Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
 * 7) Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address?  Do you plan to do so if elected?  If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
 * 8) Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia?  What are their user names and their relationships to you?
 * 9) Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
 * 10) What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee?  Do they all carry equal weight?
 * 11) What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept?  Refuse?
 * 12) How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
 * 13) What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
 * 14) Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
 * 15) Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most?  Why?
 * 16) To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
 * 17) What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
 * 18) To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
 * 19) Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

Questions from TomasBat

 * 1) In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)
 * Although it's a bit of a cop-out, I don't believe these are competing goals. A strong user-base is needed to produce the encyclopaedia.  Good faith users will not do substantive, unrepairable damage.  Teaching new users the ropes is a gamble - some pan out, some do not, but unless we do it, none will pan out.

Question from MBisanz

 * 1) In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond?  If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.
 * I would just admit who I am. My real life identity is extremely nonrevealing anyways.  As it stands I have taken no pains to either conceal or reveal it, a practice I intend to continue.  Certainly my identity is known to some Wikipedians already.

Questions from Pixelface

 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
 * Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. I think the specific dispute was over the moment the case opened, in that sense the remedies were irrelevent.  I do think the light remedies adopted fail to discourage, and may even encourage, similar behaviour in the future.


 * 1) Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
 * I have not had an extensive involvement in any case other than Sarah Palin Wheel War. I can't recall all these cases where I've made a statement, given a bit of feedback or provided a few tidbits of evidence.
 * 1) Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).
 * I have never initiated a request for arbitration.

Questions from Badger Drink

 * 1) It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
 * It's always easier to criticise in hindsight. Merging Omnibus was a mistake, dragging it out by mixing essentially seperate things making everything murkier, and leading to the long-running animosity between Viridae and JzG remaining unaddressed.  I've seen no flares of it since, so maybe sufficient warning came out, but a specific "leave each other the hell alone" would've been advisable.
 * The sticking of BLPLOG into footnoted quotes was probably a mistake. No eyes meant that it wasn't thought through as well as it ought to have been, and little feedback has lead to a remedy apparently intended for widespread use that's rather a bit of a joke.  At the very least, better advertisement of such a widereaching remedy would have been a must.


 * 1) What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
 * There was no need for behind closed doors preceedings in this case (barring real life concerns, there never are) and from this springs much of the problem. There certainly was an underlying dispute that may have needed addressing, but that's neither here nor there.  No real life concerns = no behind closed doors meetings.
 * 1) This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?
 * Poor communication - to the community, to each other, and receiving from the community all stand out. How to address this is not necessarily obvious to me.   What are the real pitfalls here?  For my own part I think I'm pretty blunt and talkative - but others may disagree. Closed-door cases need to be eschewed when there are no real life concerns covered.  More feedback, responses to questions needs to take place at the workshop & proposed decisions.  But these are baby steps, I'm not sure what a more comprehensive programme would look like. Wily D  20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Holding the RFC right then almost certainly assured it would be a complete mess. A more sober, more organised review at a less "hot" time would definitely be worthwhile (a thought on the RFC itself).

Question from BirgitteSB
Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases. Which follow slightly clarified:


 * Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
 * Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?-- Birgitte SB  19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The question of "What portion of the evidence?" must be asked. I do believe any party (especially any likely-to-be sanctioned party) should have the ability to address any concerns about them where possible.  Double-blind dual summaries are probably not something I would support, above and beyond the call allowing parties to respond to any proposal before voting in a much more rigourous way than is done for open cases.

Questions from Kristen Eriksen
1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy", which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.
 * The general standard for verifiability is pretty low. Newspapers, magazines & the lot are widely accepted.  Furthermore, even top scientific journals regularly carry results that are flat wrong.  In all likelyhood, whatever gets published in Homeopathy doesn't go unanswered, and responses towards it can be dug up too.  In an ideal NPOV form, Homeopathy should say something like Homeopathic results are widely discredited in much of the scientific press, but some studies associated with Homeopathic journals have reported positive results.  UNDUE is always a tricky thing to obey, and usually isn't met very well by articles that aren't about featured in quality.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?
 * To hope to adhere to a neutral point of view, we can't hope to exclude information that may offend somebody. We have to trust our readers with information - empower them to make their own judgements, not push our judgements upon them.
 * No doubt, this could help or harm our reputation, but I suspect we just make the best product we can, and let people use it or not as they prefer.

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.
 * In general, Mot the barber is not a good source of information. Nor is "Americans probably think this" a strong reliable source.  There is a strong need to prefer "sources which are generally recognised as authoritative and serious" to those which fail either criterion.  The usual standard is "Where two different sources disagree, make clear what comes from what source."  "Americans generally expect that seeing their parents bumping uglies will result in serious psychological damage to kids, but studies suggest ... not so much."  In general, we don't code every science article with "This could be wrong, per surveys showing lots of Americans are creationists".
 * In the very difficult and delicate area of undue, where editors are reasonable, try to resolve disputes rationally and through consensus, employing dispute resolution mechanisms in good faith, I can't see sanctioning people just because they give a little too much weight to public opinion or scientific literature.

Questions From Ϣere Spiel  Chequers
For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
 * 2) In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
 * 3) In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
 * 4) How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

Question(s) from LtPowers

 * There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment?  If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust?  (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with.  My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)  Powers T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This has occured to some extent or another - ArbCom is reluctant to impose sanctions, especially against users with any sort of track record of value or popularity. My candidate's statement should address this, but I will note that I don't have any particular friends on Wiki, my only foray in FAC failed because I couldn't finagle a decent copyedit out of anyone, and so there is no particular cause for concern with respect to my bias do to relationships with those in the dockets, that I can see.

=Individual questions=
 * Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.

From The Land Surveyor

 * I thought Thatcher's question from his 'moral maze' above was rather interesting and topical.


 * C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

I would also like to see your answer to that one. The question is whether to choose between something that is undoubtedly beneficial to the project (that is, allowing Smith to continue with his or her strong contributions to an encyclopedic work), or whether Smith's trenchant criticism of Jones, a senior member of the community, is grounds for continuing the ban. We should assume here that Smith believes his criticism does not amount to harassment, i.e. is acting in good faith, even if perhaps other reasonable people hold that it does amount to harassment. I believe there is an easy solution to this dilemma, but I leave it to you, and I am interested in your answer, or indeed anyone's. The Land Surveyor (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The question isn't whether Smith or Jones believes the criticism to be harrassment, but whether it is harrassment. The question is explicitly clear that it is.  If it's not, the answer may be different.  One is entitled (possibly even expected) to be critical where warrented, especially towards those in senior positions, but when one presents themselves as a Wikipedian (in their blog, or whereever) then the same standards of No harassing people still apply.
 * I am also unconvinced that writing good articles + harassing people = net benefit to encyclopaedia. This is a collaborative project, and just about everything is collaborative to some extent or another.  Those who can't work well with others aren't helpful, as are those who won't.

Questions from Will Beback
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
 * I was User:Requests_for_adminship, which yes, was a "joke account". I'm also User:Blatant Sockpuppet of WilyD, who is only active on commons.


 * 2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?
 * The standard is, of course, the ever nebulous disruption. Using two accounts together to create the illusion of multiple people supporting an action or position is flatly forbidden.  In all other cases, whether the use is disruptive is the key question.


 * 3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
 * The focus on "Whose sock is this?" is a question that bogs things down too much and is a bit of a red herring anyhow. Where identified, they can be reblocked easily enough.  Where they're disruptive, they can be blocked easily enough even if we don't know whose sock it is.  The focus needs to be on is this account being disruptive?.

Question from harej
Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom puts into regulation/practice the good times? The history of the ArbCom is that it was set in place to stave off the bad times.  Judges, policemen, mediators is what the ArbCom are - they can only drive away troubles.

Question from Rspeer
Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the scientific POV is often the most authoritative POV, but in many cases other points of view may be worthy of mention. This can often be done reasonably well within the confines of the undue weight clause.  In general, this means that subarticles rarely mention anything other than the "mainstream authoritative" interpretation of events unless it's relevent (e. g. not every article about something more than 6004 years 28 days old needs to mention not everyone accepts the date, maybe if it is specifically disputed). Exact applications of UNDUE will generally fall within the "content dispute" regime which is traditionally not addressed by ArbCom.  As arbs are not elected to decide these things, I would be loath to co-opt them without a specific community mandate.
 * My own bias as a scientist may be showing here.

Questions from Ncmvocalist
1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to skip over whether it's unique - I'm not sure this is a meaningful question. Further, without being familiar with every case ArbCom has ever heard, how can I know this?
 * There are certainly some troubling aspect to this case - how fast it proceeded and so forth. Some other process irregularities present as well.  Across the remedies, the "shall consult with the committee" language of the resolutions bothers me - it is the role of the committee to desysop users, but the community to sysop them, and ArbCom shouldn't be meddling in this as a matter of routine.
 * 1.3) is probably the best of the lot. It is still not exactly what I'd like to say - "will consult with the committee" bothers me greatly.  1.2) is easy enough to support, 1.1) is also easy enough to support, although the committee should go farther to acknowledge that unfair treatment took place in the case.   I agree with the presented arguments that 1) is too strong - a reopening of the case would be necessary to such an end, and it seems nobody wants that.

Questions from Al tally

 * 1) Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
 * It is worth first noting that CheckUser policy and Oversight specify where an ArbCom exists, it choses the CheckUsers/Oversighters. At least one of the wikis in our family has had problems stemming from this too, but perhaps that's besides the point (neither method would be flawless). The last appointing of oversighters advertised community input, though pretty clearly that never took place.  In this way, ArbCom elections effectively also "elect" oversighters and checkusers - and ultimately only ArbCom can hold them to account (although they seem to decline this duty too).  A division of powers may be worthwhile - but as long as ArbCom is effectively elected and then unaccountable to the community - it simply shouldn't be the priority.
 * 1) See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
 * The difference between the community-selected ArbCom and the self-selected CSN hangers on is worthy of note here.
 * From a purely legalistic standpoint, the community creates policy and the ArbCom enforces it; this effectively gives the community an avenue to do so if it choses. In practice, in a genuine conflict between ArbCom and the community, it's hard to guess how it plays out.  With unspoken policy ... yadda yadda yadda ... if it ever comes to conflict of this nature, the project probably dies, and the community and ArbCom with it.  It is probably thusly the responsibility of both to avoid it.
 * Community bans certainly exist; no one can really deny this. They're entirely independent of ArbCom.
 * 1) Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
 * Since checkusers and oversighters are additionally appointed, and recent events have suggested there's a need for more oversighters/checkusers, I don't see a roll of "default remove". If I resigned in disgrace, I'd resign the extra bits (assuming I ever take them, which is not always the case) - if it was merely because I was unable to handle the excess workload, then if I felt I could still be an asset as a CU/OS, I'd retain them unless removed, yes.
 * Access to the mailing list is trickier. Without good knowledge of what goes on, how can I really say?  With 3 year staggered terms, there's no additional need to institutional memory - I see no other argument for retaining for Arbs on the mailing list.
 * 1) Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
 * The ArbCom was created by both Jimbo and the community - there's a vote around somewhere. It could implement a mandatory recall.  Beyond that, there's only RfC and User_talk:Jimbo, neither of which assure results.
 * In extreme cases, the community could always community ban an Arb - I hope it never comes to this.
 * I believe that if I go off the rails, I could be talked off the horse - but how much trust you'd put in me (especially in the light of the recent drama-fires) is your own choice.
 * I believe that if I go off the rails, I could be talked off the horse - but how much trust you'd put in me (especially in the light of the recent drama-fires) is your own choice.

Good luck with the election!  Al Tally  talk  19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions by Pohta ce-am pohtit
Two questions related to the balance of power between ArbCom and admins. Pcap ping  16:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Do you think that the special civility restrictions enacted by ArbCom in several cases have been successful? If not, what would you do propose instead?
 * 2) Should a single admin A be allowed to undo an action of another admin B when the latter is claiming to act under the provisions of an ArbCom case (WP:AE)? If the answer is no, what should be done about admin A?


 * The unspoken question here is quite plainly the recent brewhaha surrounding SlimVirgin and FT2, so let me aim straight for the nail's head.
 * The civility paroles have pretty clearly been colossal failures. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge comes to mind.  The key failure appears to be the wildly uneven enforcement.
 * This leads to our second question. FT2's block under that restriction was made as an ordinary admin, but then ArbCom turnt around and enforced it as their own, breaking with longstanding precedent.  Very recently, in the case I was involved in, Sarah Palin Wheel War, the full protection of Sarah Palin was performed invoking an ArbCom remedy, and then undone without discussion.  Despite this, only a wee warning was given out.  Now, in a very comparable case, a summary desysoping is ordered without a case even being opened.  Why?  Seemingly, the key difference is that an arbitrator enforced the remedy.
 * So what should be happening? ArbCom clearly needs to abandon these failed "Anyone may enforce" remedies and invoke "We will enforce where warrented, report at WP:AE" remedies instead.  Then we eliminate the wildly uneven enforcement, and we avoid dropping hammers on people out of the clear blue sky.
 * Let me reiterate - ArbCom remedies should be enforced seriously, and not overturnt without extended discussion and clear consensus. But in the particular case of interest, there is an intertwined heavy-handedness and uneven enforcement which troubles me greatly.

Question from Ling.Nut

 * I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
 * Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
 * Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 16:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, the point is, I think, well made. There is an astounding assortment of policies, guidelines & essays, none of which are binding, but all of which people will attempt to treat as binding from time to time.  It is highly unreasonable to expect editors to know them all by heart, though certainly they should familiarise themselves with them as required.  As for ethical obligations, these are probably unenforceable - certainly no one is required to do anything around here, you're only required not to do things (and even that is, of course, flexible).


 * Regarding your more specific point, I usually do articulate IAR as "if nobody objects - it's allowed". Userspace is a tricky business of course; while we don't own our userspace, we're also allowed to do almost anything we like with in practice (immune to 3RR and the like).  Like anything else, when you have a dispute, WP:DR.  Even when it's inane, a 3rd O can help make it much clearer.

Additional questions from Pixelface
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions: Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?
 * Too few arbitrators risks single opinions or too insular thinking. ArbCom should have a diverse set of opinions - with such strength behind their opinions, a diverse set of opinions representing a cross-section of Wikipedians needs to be represented.
 * Too many arbitrators can bog down decision-making decisions drawn out, and preventing good, insightful, influential discussions between Arbitrators.
 * To meet these two criteria, the number needed probably is about 10. With absences and whatnot, 15 seems to be a reasonable choice.  Certainly I see no problem with the existing size of the committee.
 * 1) How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
 * Of course, the correct action isn't to know these things, but test them empirically. A reduction to 2 years w/ evaluation of it's effect would be welcome.
 * 1) What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
 * In principle, forcing it off there would probably just send it to even more hidden places. :(. It is perhaps troublesome to not explicitly invite everybody - but at the same time, I used Flonight's talk to explain my understanding of the events around Sarah Palin Protection Wheel War at the time.
 * I don't think it's ideal. But I don't think it's forbidable either.
 * 1) Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * 2) Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
 * Yes. Arbs are still members of the community.
 * 1) Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Arbitration policy?
 * No. The community are still members of the community.
 * 1) Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?
 * Nominally, WP:N. We are fundamentally incapable of writing decent articles about those subjects for which reliable sources do not exist.  It's widely known that notable is a bad term for this, and WP:N should be moved to Wikipedia:Inclusion Criteria or such.  The essentially principle is sound - we write from sources  -and so we can't include things without good sources.
 * 1) Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?
 * 2) Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 3) Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
 * 4) Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?